The Return to the Originary Phenomenology for Sociology: Husserl’s 'Foundational' Ontology

Abstract

Phenomenology, is a philosophy arguing behind every thought and action, even behind the scientific studies there lies essences preceding them. In this respect Edmund Husserl makes a call for the philosophers and social scientists to uncover those essences, in other words intentionalities and ideals as universal meaning which are constituted in a common world. Almost immediately it was positively replied and was adopted to social sciences in various ways. Describing the meanings given to the objects, with the goal of exposing the underlying structures in the society which operates through the minds of people, and doing this by staying away from social theories, becomes a radical approach which has influenced so many social scientists. However, it is not possible to say that its application in sociology has been always in accordance with its philosophy so far. Departing from this critical position, in this (first) essay, in order to bring phenomenological sociological research back to its roots and to recover phenomenology from being placed to the status of “a procedure” or a method of qualitative research, I thoroughly present its ontology, by analyzing its special idealism, understanding of essence and ideal a priori, intersubjectivity, intentionality under separate headings. Then, problematizing its namelessness, I propose alternative names for its ontology among which I put one forward. The analysis in this article is conducted, in a way, with a “phenomenology of phenomenology” approach, which tries to bring Husserl’s own intentionality, his foundational view about the world to light. The main importance of this essay originates from, besides presenting phenomenology’s philosophy from primary sources and from the perspective of a sociologist, its effort to describe and position its ontology for sociology in alignment with its philosophy and its philosopher.

Keywords

• Edmund Husserl
• Phenomenology
• Sociology
• Foundational Ontology

SOSYOLOJİ İÇİN ASIL FENOMENOLOJİYE DÖNÜŞ: HUSSERL’İN ‘TEMEL’ ONTOLOJİSİ

Abstract

Fenomenoloji, her düşünce ve eylemin ve dahi bilimsel çalışmaların ardında onları önceleyen düşünce özlerinin bulunduğu iddiasına sahip bir felsefedir. Bu bağlamda felsefecilere bu felsefeyi benimseyen sosyal bilim insanlarına, yaşamların ortaklığında kurulan evrensel anlamlar olan bu “öz”leri, diğer bir deyişle yönelimleri ve idealleri ortaya çıkarmak için bir çağrıda bulunur. Bu çağrı hemen karşılık bulur ve fenomenoloji sosyal bilimlere değişik şekillerde uyarlanır. Nesnelere verilen anlamı, insanların bilinçleri üzerinden işleyen yapıyı ortaya çıkarmak amacıyla kuramlardan uzak durarak betimlemek birçok sosyal bilim insanını etkileyen radikal bir yaklaşım haline gelir. Ancak fenomenolojinin sosyolojideki kullanımının paradigmasına uygun bir şekilde yapıldığını söylemek mümkün değildir. Bu eleştirel tespitten hareketle, bu (ilk) makalede, sosyolojideki fenomenolojiyi köklerine döndürmek ve nitel araştırmaların bir deseni ya da yöntemi konumuna indirilmekten kurtarmak adına onun ontolojisini, kendine özgü idealizmini, öz ve ideal apriori (önsellik) anlayışını, öznelerarasılığı ve yönelimselliği ayrı bölümler altında inceleyerek ortaya koyuyorum. Daha sonra ontolojisinin isimsizliğini sorunlaştırarak ona alternatif isimler öneriyor, aralarından birisini öne çıkartıyorum. Husserl’in geniş ve ayrıntılı felsefesinin altında, zaman zaman açıkça ortaya koyduğu dünyaya yönelik çarpıcı bir bakış yatar. İncelemelerimi Husserl’in bu bakışını “fenomenolojinin fenomenolojisi” yaklaşımıyla, yani onun “yönelimselliği”ni, dünya hakkındaki temel bakışını gün ışığına çıkartarak yapmaya çalışıyorum. Bu makalenin önemi, sosyologlara, fenomenoloji felsefesini birincil kaynaklardan ve daha anlaşılır bir dilde sunmasının yanı sıra, sosyolojideki ontolojisini hem felsefesiyle hem filozofuyla aynı hizada anlatmaya ve konumlandırmaya çalışmasından kaynaklanır.

Keywords

• Edmund Husserl
• Fenomenoloji
• Sosyoloji
• Temel Ontoloji

References

1. Adorno, T. W. (1940). Husserl and the problem of idealism. The Journal of Philosophy, 37(1), 5–18.
2. Adorno, T. W. (2013). Against epistemology: A metacritique. Studies in Husserl and the phenomenological antinomies (W. Domingo, Trans.). Polity Press.
3. Berghofer, P. (2018). Why Husserl is a moderate foundationalist. Husserl Studies, 34, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-017-9213-4
4. Caminada, E. (2016). Husserl on groupings: Social ontology and the phenomenology of we-intentionality. In T. Szanto & D. Moran (Eds.), Phenomenology of sociality (pp. 281–295). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315688268
5. Correia, F. (2004). Husserl on foundation. Dialectica, 58(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.2004.tb00310.x
6. Crowell, S. C. (1990). Husserl, Heidegger, and transcendental philosophy: Another look at the Encyclopedia Britannica article. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50(3), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.2307/2108161
7. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
8. Derrida, J. (1973). Speech and phenomena, and other essays on the theory of signs (D. B. Allison & N. Garver, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.

9. Derrida, J. (1989). Edmund Husserl’s origin of geometry: An introduction (J. P. Leavey Jr., Trans.). University of Nebraska Press.
10. Derrida, J. (2011). Gramatoloji (İ. Birkan, Çev.). Bilgesu.
11. Fine, K. (1989). Part–whole. In B. Smith (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Husserl (pp. 463–485). Cambridge University Press.
12. Guyer, P., & Horstmann, R.-P. (2023). Idealism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/
13. Halák, J., Jirásek, I., & Nesti, M. S. (2014). Phenomenology is not phenomenalism: Is there such thing as phenomenology of sport? Acta Gymnica, 44(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.5507/ag.2014.012
14. Heidegger, M. (1985). History of the concept of time: Prolegomena (T. Kisiel, Trans.). Indiana University Press.
15. Heidegger, M. (1988). Basic problems of phenomenology (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). Indiana University Press.
16. Heidegger, M. (2008). Varlık ve zaman (K. Ökten, Çev.). Agora Kitaplığı.
17. Heidegger, M. (2009). Metafizik nedir? (Y. Örnek, Çev.). Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu.
18. Hopp, W. (2008). Husserl, phenomenology, and foundationalism. Inquiry, 51(2), 194–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201740801956937
19. Husserl, E. (2017). Fenomenoloji üzerine beş ders (H. Tepe, Çev.). Bilgesu.
20. Husserl, E. (2001). Analyses concerning passive and active syntheses: Lectures on transcendental logic (A. J. Steinbock, Trans.). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21. Husserl, E. (1994). Avrupa insanlığının krizi ve felsefe (A. Sabuncuoğlu & O. Sözer, Çev.). Alfa Yayınları.
22. Husserl, E. (1982). Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology (D. Cairns, Trans.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
23. Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy (D. Carr, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.
24. Husserl, E. (1973). Experience and judgement: Investigations in a genealogy of logic (L. Landgrebe, Ed.; J. S. Churchill & K. Ameriks, Trans.). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
25. Husserl, E. (1969). Formal and transcendental logic (D. Cairns, Trans.). Martinus Nijhoff.
26. Husserl, E. (1983). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: First book. General introduction to a pure phenomenology (F. Kersten, Trans.). Martinus Nijhoff.
27. Husserl, E. (1989). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: Second book. Studies in the phenomenology of constitution (R. Rojcewicz & A. Schuwer, Trans.). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28. Husserl, E. (1995). Kesin bir bilim olarak felsefe (T. Mengüşoğlu, Çev.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
29. Husserl, E. (2001). Logical investigations: Vol. 1 (D. Moran, Ed.; J. N. Findlay, Trans.). Routledge.
30. Husserl, E. (2001). Logical investigations: Vol. 2 (D. Moran, Ed.; J. N. Findlay, Trans.). Routledge.
31. Husserl, E. (2021). Paris konferansları (T. Kabadayı, Çev.). Bilgesu.
32. Husserl, E. (2015). İçsel zaman bilincinin fenomenolojisi üzerine (M. Heidegger, Ed.; M. Keskin, Çev.). Avesta Basın Yayın.
33. Kabadayı, T. (2020). Fenomenolojiyi anlamak. In E. Husserl, Paris konferansları (pp. 7–19). Bilgesu.
34. Kerry, D. S., & Armour, K. M. (2000). Sport sciences and the promise of phenomenology: Philosophy, method and insight. Quest, 52(1), 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2000.10491697
35. Keskin, M. (2015). Zaman fenomenolojisinin başlangıçtaki temel kavramları. In E. Husserl, İçsel zaman bilincinin fenomenolojisi üzerine (pp. 183–201). Avesta Basın Yayın.
36. Kıral, B. (2021). Nitel araştırmada fenomenoloji deseni: Türleri ve araştırma süreci. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(4), 92–103.
37. Levinas, E. (1973). The theory of intuition in Husserl’s phenomenology (A. Orianne, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.
38. Levinas, E. (1998). Discovering existence with Husserl (R. A. Cohen & M. B. Smith, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.
39. Lerner, R. P. (2010). The Cartesian meditations’ foundational discourse: An obsolete project? The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy, 10(1), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1558/nyppp.v10i1.145
40. Luckmann, T. (1973). Philosophy, social sciences and everyday life. In T. Luckmann (Ed.), Phenomenology and sociology (pp. 217–253). Penguin Books.
41. Luckmann, T. (1978). Preface. In T. Luckmann (Ed.), Phenomenology and sociology (pp. 7–13). Penguin Books.
42. Luft, S. (2012). Lerner on Husserl on foundationalism, person and rationality. New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy, 10(1), 167–170. https://doi.org/10.1558/nyppp.v10i1.167
43. Lübbe, H. (1960). Positivism and phenomenology: Mach and Husserl. In T. Luckmann (Ed.), Phenomenology and sociology (pp. 90–118). Penguin Books.
44. Lyotard, J.-F. (2021). Fenomenoloji (İ. Birkan, Çev.). Dost Kitabevi.
45. Martinková, I., & Parry, J. (2011). An introduction to the phenomenological study of sport. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 5(3), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2011.602571
46. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1960). The philosopher and sociology. In T. Luckmann (Ed.), Phenomenology and sociology (pp. 142–160). Penguin Books.
47. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2016). Algının fenomenolojisi (E. Sarıkartal & E. Hacımuratoğlu, Çev.). İthaki.
48. Miller, J. A. (2009). Phenomenology’s negative dialectic: Adorno’s critique of Husserl’s epistemological foundationalism. The Philosophical Forum, 40(2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9191.2008.00317.x
49. Moran, D., & Cohen, J. (2012). The Husserl dictionary. Continuum International Publishing Group.
50. Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2
51. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
52. Ricoeur, P. (1999). Husserl: An analysis of his phenomenology. Northwestern University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0149.1968.tb01399.x
53. Raza, S. (2022). On the uses of phenomenology in sociological research: A typology, some criticism and a plea. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 54(2), 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12415
54. Sartre, J.-P. (2018). Being and nothingness: An essay in phenomenological ontology (S. Richmond, Trans.). Washington Square Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429434013
55. Schrag, C. O. (2006). Heidegger felsefesinde fenomenoloji, varlıkbilim ve tarih. (S. Şen, Çev.). ÇITAD, 13, 205–215.
56. Schütz, A. (1940). Phenomenology and the social sciences. In T. Luckmann (Ed.), Phenomenology and sociology (pp. 119–141). Penguin Books.
57. Schütz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.
58. Schütz, A. (2017). Fenomenoloji ve toplumsal ilişkiler (A. Akan, Çev.). Heretik Yayıncılık.
59. Simons, P. (1982). The formalisation of Husserl’s theory of parts and wholes. In B. Smith (Ed.), Parts and moments: Studies in logic and formal ontology (pp. 113–159). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2x8v896.6
60. Smith, D. W. (2013). Phenomenology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/
61. Sokolowski, R. (1968). The logic of parts and wholes in Husserl’s investigations. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 28(4), 537–553.
62. Sözer, O. (1976). Edmund Husserl’in fenomenolojisi ve nesnelerin varlığı. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
63. Tarozzi, M., & Mortari, L. (2010). Phenomenology as philosophy of research. In Phenomenology and human science research today (pp. 9–55). Zeta Books. https://doi.org/10.7761/9789731997452_1
64. Tepe, H. (2017). Giriş. In E. Husserl, Fenomenoloji üzerine beş ders (pp. VII–XXXII). Bilgesu.
65. Uygur, N. (1998). Edmund Husserl’de başkasının beni sorunu. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
66. Yardımlı, A. (2004). Önsöz. In M. Heidegger, Varlık ve zaman (A. Yardımlı, Çev., pp. 13–15). İdea Yayınevi.
67. Zahavi, D. (2003). Husserl’s phenomenology. Stanford University Press.
68. Zahavi, D. (2019). Phenomenology: The basics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315441603